PHA-Exchange> The World Bank: A Problem Bigger than Wolfowitz

[claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn]

From: Jihad Mashal 

 The World Bank: A Problem Bigger than Wolfowitz

By Mark Weisbrot

The Bush Administration's choice of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz 
to head the World Bank has ignited a storm of international controversy. 
Coming on the heels of the nomination of anti-UN John Bolton for Ambassador to 
the United Nations, the selection of Wolfowitz is widely perceived as sending 
a strong message to the rest of the world.

And that message is decidedly not friendly. Wolfowitz is a major architect and 
symbol of the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, its contempt for multilateral 
institutions, and general disregard for world public opinion.

But what will it mean for the future of the World Bank? Here in Washington, 
there is a deep sense of dread and malaise among World Bank staff. Naturally 
they do not want to be seen as just another instrument of U.S. foreign policy.

But most people are not aware how much the World Bank already plays that role. 
First of all, almost all of the World Bank's policy-based lending is 
subordinated to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In other words, the 
Bank throws its (larger) lending weight behind the IMF's macroeconomic 
policies, by refusing to lend in most cases unless the borrowing country meets 
IMF approval. The IMF, in turn, is dominated almost completely by the U.S. 
Treasury department. While the Europeans and Japanese could theoretically 
outvote the United States, they haven't yet done so in the last 60 years.

This gives the U.S. Treasury control over a powerful creditors' cartel, since 
the Fund and the Bank together are often able to persuade other multi-lateral 
lenders, rich country governments, and even the private sector not to lend if 
a country doesn't meet with IMF/Treasury approval. In the last few years this 
power has eroded somewhat, as Argentina -- one of these institutions' largest 
borrowers -- called the cartel's bluff and won big. After defaulting on $100 
billion of private debt, Argentina twice threatened default to the IMF itself -
- an almost unprecedented act of defiance -- and surprised the experts by jump-
starting their recovery with rapid growth and a lower debt burden.

But the IMF/ World Bank cartel still has enormous influence over policy in 
most developing countries. The record of the last 25 years indicates that this 
influence has been overwhelmingly negative: outside of Asia, the vast majority 
low and middle-income countries have suffered a sharp slowdown in economic 
growth. There are almost no success stories to point to -- the World Bank and 
IMF can hardly take credit for the Chinese growth spurt since 1980. But where 
these institutions have been heavily involved, the economic failure is 
striking: In Latin America, income per person has grown about 12 percent in 
the last 25 years, as compared with 80 percent in just the previous two 
decades (1960-1979). Africa has fared much worse, and the World Bank and IMF 
have been slow and stingy in providing even debt cancellation for the poorest 
countries -- something that can be done with the stroke of a pen.

Wolfowitz will therefore be taking over an institution that, by any standard 
economic measure, has failed. But the Bank has refused to even consider this 
possibility. Much of its economic research is politically driven. For example, 
on the eve of a key Congressional vote on trade last year, the Bank published 
a study showing that NAFTA had increased growth in Mexico. Their main result 
stems from an economic modeling error; yet the report remains uncorrected, on 
their web site.

In short, despite liberal sentiments among many of its staff, the World Bank 
is not a liberal institution. In fact it is so illiberal in practice that some 
of the United States' most prominent socially responsible investment funds 
(e.g., the Calvert group), largest unions (Service Employees International 
Union), and ten city governments have all pledged to boycott the World Bank's 
bonds -- which are commonly held by institutional investors -- until it 
reforms some of its most abusive polices toward developing countries.

Paul Wolfowitz is unlikely to advance these needed reforms. But until the 
other 183 countries that are members of this institution have a voice in its 
decisions, the World Bank is unlikely to live up to its mission of reducing 
poverty and improving living standards for developing countries -- no matter 
which American is formally in charge.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Netnam-HCMC ISP: http://www.hcmc.netnam.vn/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20050325/c6d0934d/attachment-0001.html>